What do you think of Obama's health care an/or economy package(s)

if you do that the middleclass becomes the poor people (so next one on the chopping block), the value of money plunges and you are just repulsing for sugesting that

 

Considering the number of companys that have shipped there labor over seas where its cheaper, I'd say it's self evident what side of the curve where on. If we were on the left side of the curve there would be more economic growth then what were seeing. Even china knows how to spur production better then the US. Currently we are terrible to our employers. We should be focusing on creating an environment for independant growth, not tickleing industries with dollar bills hoping something happens.

 

What? The Laffer curve deals with government revenue, not economic growth. Also, Chinese labor costs are cheaper not because of our tax rate but because
1. They have a lower standard of living
2. They artificially keep their currency cheaper than ours
The tax rate has little to do with either of these.

 

The laffer curve is based on a balance between economic growth and tax income. It is based on the economy and how best to gain revenue through it. If it was independent of the economy it wouldn't exist.

The government controls the value of your land, how much you pay them to live on it. Having a direct effect on the cost of living. Idaho has low land values, thus low cost of living. It's not too hard to imagine assembly lines in Idaho supporting livelihood. We have the benefit in manufacturing and our country not to have to pay for the shipping across the ocean. If our business taxes are so high that shipping across the Pacific Ocean is cheaper then theres something wrong.

 

What the Laffer curve suggests is a relationship between the rate of taxation and government revenue. The Laffer curve model holds that relationship to be true regardless of economic growth - the optimal point on the Laffer curve, as well as the degree to which that optimal point is accurate, are dependent on economic growth - but economic growth changes nothing about their relationship, just where the optimal point will/should be.

ScardyBob is correct in that the taxation is not solely responsible for labor going overseas. China has manipulated its exchange rate for quite some time, and they are a surplus savings unit, whereas we are and have been a deficit savings unit in the world economy for at least the past several decades. Their cost of living is much lower largely due to the fact that their lifestyle is, in most cases, simpler, more modest, and they forgo current consumption for greater future consumption moreso than we do (or have been).

 

You've got me. Your statements are irrefutable. But they don't refute the fact that our government could do more to boost our economy. Through less taxation which may in the end be more profitable to them. I'm sure we can agree that Washington needs more economists and less lobbyists.

I don't feel this medical push is beyond the realm of lobbying. I'm certain it's somebody's wallet that comes before our well being in this decision. That's why we should pick it to pieces. I believe the bill is posted somewhere for review. However due to its immense size I think it's definitely clear that they don't want us to know what's in it. Congress should not function like a court, a bill is not innocent until proven guilty. A bill should be unapproved until it is fully read.

And I want everyone to please remember that this topic is about Obamas Health Care and economy packages, not those of england, Canada, Germany, or anywhere else. The man himself can not tell you what's in it yet he gives it his full support. Congress hired a speed reader to go through it. It absolutely ridiculous.

Even if your pro Obama, that he's a great guy with only our best interests at heart, is letting way too much slide and putting too much trust in people who are making bad decisions. They're raising taxes in a recession, counter intuitive. That makes as much sense as selling refineries to build a vehicle factory.

 

Wowa there is no optimal point on the laffer curve. Its Government Revenue on the dependent axis and tax rate on the independent axis. The "optimum" (maximum) is just where government revenue is maximized.

It also has nothing to do with growth rates.

 

There is no hiding of the healthcare reform bill. Like any other bill, it is publicly accessible from many sources. The most convenient source is OpenCongress, and I shared the link to the bill on OpenCongress on an earlier page in this thread. Here's the link again (America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200): http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text (Title II is most relevant to your concerns over private choices. Keep in mind that currently, most choices with regards to private health insurance are made by employers that provide or subsidize such plans, not by employees which are merely the policyholders.)

Every bill has a designation and ID number. Though I'm unsure of what system they use for ID assignment, they bear either the H.R. or S. prefix (House of Rep. / Senate). You are always free to read bills, in part or in full. OpenCongress is a very nice and well-maintained website.

Well, they're spending, which will inherently raise taxation down the road, but they have not raised taxes in a recession in the traditional sense. Ireland however, has indeed raised its taxes in the middle of its recession, and you can read a great deal about that if you query some articles from April, May, and perhaps even June or July. Ireland did everything we did, but quite a bit worse relative to their situation and their needs. You have now remarked about raising taxes during an economic downturn being a bad thing (and it is), but not raising taxes during an economic downturn is meant to be accompanied by government spending (if you're a Keynesian or are at least taking a Keynesian approach), but I saw you remarking earlier in this thread about how you were displeased with our government's spending. That highlights a contradiction in your viewpoints, perhaps one you didn't mean to make. You are against raising taxes during a downturn, but also against increasing spending or running large deficits during a downturn, from what I gather of your statements. Please don't read this as: "John Shandy likes to spend, spend, spend." I don't, but I see most of the recent spending (not all - i didn't care for the auto bailouts) as a temporary necessity.

When I said "optimal point," I was meaning the point at which government revenue from taxation is maximized. I probably should've chosen better words. Simon.

 

I don't think they contradict at all. I feel the government should touch as little money as possible. A combination of efficient taxing and Conservative spending results in a more responsible government.

 

I think we're all on the peak of the maxwell-boltzmann distribution, clearly our ecomony is fairly solid.

You should if you believe in democracy, and consider children as 'people'.

Your other option is to believe in something other than democracy.

Personally I don't really care too much either way.

 

There is nothing wrong with the government spending a fairly large amount of money. How money is spent is a way bigger issue than how much.

Conservative spending doesn't really make sense anymore. Education and research and development are becoming more important than capital stocks and developed countries are at a competitive disadvantage for most manufacturing.

The government could due to spent ALOT more on research and development and education. Basic healthcare as well. How many Einsteins have been lost to poverty? Long term growth comes from people who invent transistors not build factories.

And what the fuck does the maxwell-boltzmann distribution have to do with economics and/or how the fuck can we been on the peak of it.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with it, I just wondered if anybody would bother to check what it is or whether I would actually be able to argue with someone that a graph showing the average energy distribution in a substance was actually an important economic tool.

I highly doubt anybody understands the graphs they are quoting, it seems more probable they're having quotation contests where they yell at best secondary sources at each other until one gives up.

 

Laffer curve is pretty basic

 

So is the boltzmann distribution, still took my chemistry teacher two weeks to finish teaching it.

It results in a government that doesn't do anything.

Democratic governments are inefficient, it's one of their main benefits, it's what stops them being tyrannical.

You want efficiency, get a dictator, you want democracy, don't expect efficiency.

 

Well government officials spend taxpayers' money on someone else so they don't care as much as they would if money had been their own.

It always makes sense. I don't care about R&D bullshit. If education is really important then it will give good returns from investment. It doesn't matter if the investor is a parent or a big corporation.

"Developed" countries are bloated with labour unions. For instance GM vs Japanese car makers.

I don't believe that anyone highly intelligent might not finish his education with help of stipends. Communists wanted good for everyone and it ended badly.

BTW it's funny to see your R&D excitement and later the comment about distribution.

 

Did I not say earlier in this thread that Obama really fucked up by not having GM declare bankruptcy? Had they declared bankruptcy properly they could have re-negotiated union contracts.

Instead GM will remain eternally fucked up.

 

I was pretty much just ignoring you because your post made no sense. I figured you had no idea what you were talking about.

Except GM went under not because they had union contracts but because they made shitty cars. Even if you paid all of their workers nothing, their vehicles would be more expensive and of poorer quality than Japanese ones. It was really more of a poor management situation rather than expensive union contracts.

 

Or a combination of both? Union contracts defiantly played a roll. It costs on average 1500 more to build a car in the US just from pension contributions and health care benefits.

 

To be fair, it isn't ALL cars made in the US. Toyota has plenty of plants here in the US, but they've made sure to keep unions out. Overly high wages because of unions causing companies to suffer is a recurring theme...look at the airline industry. It certainly wasn't the only reason GM was doing so badly (is doing so badly?) but was and still is a major contributing factor.

As for it costing 1500 extra per car, I had not known that figure...that really does add up.

 

They probably did, but they weren't what caused GM to fail. Ford has many of the same contracts at GM and Chrysler, but they will make it through this recession because they sell vehicles people want (e.g. the Ford F-series is the number one selling vehicle in the U.S.).

Also, that roughly $1000-$2000 difference between foreign and domestic auto companies is based on the healthcare and pension benefits of retirees. Since Toyota/Honda/Nissan/etc haven't been building cars in the U.S. for very long, they don't have a lot of the same costs. The wages of Toyota and GM for U.S. workers today are roughly the same.

Also, unions didn't cause the airline industry to fail, high fuel costs did. Unions are rarely more than a marginal cause of major company failures.